Case rejected claims that the Government had failed to meet the necessity and minizimations requirements of its application for a wiretap order and its procedures after the wiretap was in place.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK - Indictments: Are they a sword or a shield?

"The grand jury plays a unique role in the federal criminal process. But just what that role is is not altogether clear. Flowery Supreme Court decisions describe the grand jury as a bulwark of freedom; an independent ...

In its ruling, the Court relied on on its prior holding in U.S. v. Hernandez, 79 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 1996) and the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. LaBonte.

Case held that Guideline Amendment 506 is inconsistent with the language of 28 U.S.C. § 994(h) and therefore not entitled ...

Case held that defendant did not have objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage cans located close to house.

United States v. Murgas, 967 F.Supp. 695 (N.D.N.Y. 1997)
United States v. Lasky, 967 F.Supp. 749 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

Among the many issues reviewed in these two cases are questions about when, and under what circumstances, a defendant may be entitled to a Bill of Particulars. Rule 7(f) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. ...

Court held that Government failed to show it took normal investigative procedures to meet the "necessity requirements" set forth in 18 USC § 2518(1)(c) to support a wiretap order.

This is an important and well-argued wiretap case that calls to mind Justice Douglas' prophetic warning that: "We are rapidly entering ...

Stung by harsh criticism that the mandatory minimum drug statutes tended to treat low-level drug mules and high-level drug lords too much alike, in 1994 Congress enacted the so-called "safety-valve" provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). That statute authorizes the courts to impose a Guidelines sentence without regard to ...

Case rejected claims that the Government had failed to meet the necessity and minizimations requirements of its application for a wiretap order and its procedures after the wiretap was in place.

United States v. Fern, 117 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 1997)
United States v. Lasky, 967 F.Supp. 749 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

Both of these cases deal with the sufficiency of indictments - a topic that raises disturbing questions about the power of prosecutors to control and direct the Grand Jury process in ...

The defendant in this case was convicted of conspiracy to murder a Federal judge - District Judge John H. Wood, Jr . - in 1983; so the stakes were unusually high. When high-profile attorneys Alan Dershowitz of Cambridge, MA. and David Michael of San Francisco entered the fray on behalf ...

Case reviewed differences between motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial.

This is another important and well-argued case in which Judge Bennett, with his usual methodical care and precision, explored the differences between a motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Fed.R.Crim.P. ...

QUOTE OF THE WEEK - Indictments: Are they a sword or a shield?

"The grand jury plays a unique role in the federal criminal process. But just what that role is is not altogether clear. Flowery Supreme Court decisions describe the grand jury as a bulwark of freedom; an independent ...

This case noted that the First, Fourth, Sevent, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have already held that the "in connection with" language of § 2K2.1(b)(5) should be construed as equivalent to the "in relation to" language of § 924(c)(1) - and it particularly cited with approval the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in ...

Among the many issues raised in this awful rape case was one intriguing question: whether the prosecutor had violated the defendant's constitutional rights by insinuating to the jury for the first time during her summation that the defendant's presence in the courtroom at trial had provided him with a unique ...

United States v. Fern, 117 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 1997)
United States v. Lasky, 967 F.Supp. 749 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

Both of these cases deal with the sufficiency of indictments - a topic that raises disturbing questions about the power of prosecutors to control and direct the Grand Jury process in ...

Although the majority rather routinely rejected a challenge based on a failure to prove the interstate commerce element of § 844(I), the case is noted principally for Judge Jones' dissent where she called this conciction "an abuse of the federal government's authority to prosecute this local revenge murder. . . ...

Among the many issues raised in this awful rape case was one intriguing question: whether the prosecutor had violated the defendant's constitutional rights by insinuating to the jury for the first time during her summation that the defendant's presence in the courtroom at trial had provided him with a unique ...

Despite the fact that the Guidelines only mention "single acts of aberrant behavior"in an introductory comment that pertains only to probation and split sentences (see, U.S.S.G. Ch. 1, Pt. A, intro. comment. 4(d)), the use of aberrant behavior as a permissible departure grounds continues to appear in many cases. To ...

Here the Court held that since only the Government may now file Rule 35(b) motions, an interpretation of that Rule which permits the Government to waive the time limits would render the deadline ineffectual.

The Court recognized that the jurisdictional, one-year provision for a Rule 35(b) motion is distinct from ...

A key holding in this case was that the courts, when considering a double jeopardy motion after a defendant has moved for a retrial, must focus primarily on the prosecution's intent to see if it attempted to goad the motion for mistrial.

In commenting on the Supreme Court's narrow exception ...

The Court observed that "Evidence regarding the bribing of a witness, although disturbing, clearly does not constitute impeachment material, and therefore Noriega cannot satisfy the [U.S. v. Garcia, 13 F.3d 1464 (11th Cir. 1994)] standard." (Id., at 1221).

Here the Court held that the denial of a new trial based ...

Court cites Kerr v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886) for the proposition that "the power of a court to try a person for a crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a 'forcible abduction'." (Id., at 1214).

Multi-issue ...

Case held that the withholding of tapes of a defense witness's conversations, which contained impeachment evidence favorable to the defense, with an IRS agent violated the Brady rule.

Among the many issues raised in this awful rape case was one intriguing question: whether the prosecutor had violated the defendant's constitutional rights by insinuating to the jury for the first time during her summation that the defendant's presence in the courtroom at trial had provided him with a unique ...

The defendant in this case was charged and convicted of possessing machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). The defendant was a member of a militia organization; and, initially, he filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the charging statutes violated his Second Amendment ...

Case held that the failure of the district court to make specific findings that explained contested issue of the quantity of drugs attributable to the defendant required vacation of the sentence and remand.

In this case the defendant appealed from his sentence, arguing that the district court erred by failing to group a prior mail fraud count with a current tax evasion count as closely related counts. The Court held that, although both convictions were closely related to the defendant's business, they were ...

Here, even though the warrant in question had failed to describe the items to be searched with sufficient particularity, the Court upheld the validity of the search based on the officers' good faith reliance on the warant, and held that such reliance was objectively reasonable.

United States v. Murgas, 967 F.Supp. 695 (N.D.N.Y. 1997)
United States v. Lasky, 967 F.Supp. 749 (E.D.N.Y. 1997)

Among the many issues reviewed in these two cases are questions about when, and under what circumstances, a defendant may be entitled to a Bill of Particulars. Rule 7(f) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. ...

The defendants in this case were convicted of participation is a large scale drug distribution ring in upstate New York and their presumptive Guideline sentencing ranges were from a low of 151-188 months to a high of 262-327 months. Judge Munson summarized those ranges as follows: "Through their drug enterprise, ...

United States v. Holland, 117 F.3d 589 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
United States v. Grant, 117 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 1997)

These cases are two more examples of the relentless race of the Rehnquist Court to reshape all the rules that pertain to criminal proceedings into its own utopian aspirations for ...

United States v. Holland, 117 F.3d 589 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
United States v. Grant, 117 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 1997)

These cases are two more examples of the relentless race of the Rehnquist Court to reshape all the rules that pertain to criminal proceedings into its own utopian aspirations for ...

This is an important restitution case under the "old law", which held, inter alia, that a challenge to illegal restitution payments was permissible under 28 USC § 2255 - although the decsion was ultimately reversed at 161 F3d 1341.

This is an important restitution case under the “old law” in ...

Case held that the failure of the district court to make specific findings that explained contested issue of the quantity of drugs attributable to the defendant required vacation of the sentence and remand.

Here the Court rejected the defendant's claims that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which prohibite the possession or transfer of machine guns, violates the defendant's Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Citing its earlier decision reported at 105 F.3d 603, the Court held than an indictment failing to allege behavior outside the scope of a pharmacist's professional practice cannot support a conviction when the practitioner is charged with illegally dispensing controlled substances. In this rehearing, the court acknowledged that its prior ...

In this case the district court not only denied the defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence based on Guideline Amendment 516, it justified that decision by noting that it felt that the defendant's criminal history assessment did not adequately reflect the seriousness of his past criminal conduct. The ...